There is precedent for that, of course. The city has a fake school board, called the PEP. On this board, Mayor Bloomberg has 8 of 13 votes, and if he gets wind anyone is going to vote against him, he fires those people before they even get a chance. That's why the PEP has never, ever voted against him. This, in Mayor Bloomberg's view, represents democracy. After all, he has all that money, so how could he possibly be wrong about anything?
In the Mayor's view, evidently, when you enter into binding arbitration, it's only binding if you win. If you lose, the important thing is to loudly cry it's inappropriate, and make preposterous statements like this one:
“These are kids who, if they are there for one more year, will never recover in their entire lives...”Oddly, these same kids have survived a decade of mayoral control, with Bloomberg having pretty much absolute dominion over the fake school board. Were the mayor's words true, why on earth did he wait until the last possible year? Hasn't he already had ten years to stop the deadly and irreparable harm that one year in these schools (some of which do not even meet his own department's requirements for closure) would cause?
Sorry, but if this mayor really wanted to improve schools, he'd stop indulging in nonsensical grandstanding, and start reforming things in ways that would really help kids. Instead of cuts to school budgets, he'd offer more money. Instead of whatever Bill Gates happened to pull out of his hind quarters, there would be programs emulating Finland, which offers lower class sizes, teacher respect and autonomy, and by many accounts, the best education in the world.
You've had ten years of failure, Mayor Bloomberg. It's no surprise your arguments ring hollow with the arbitrator, and these days, it's a miracle you're able even to persuade the paid hacks who spit out the absurd newspaper editorials that support you.
Posts
